there and thanks everybody for participating. really appreciate it. >> it wasn't till the death of john f. kennedy the presidential protection service began to get closer attention by the american people. carol lennox began reporting in the secret service for the "washington post" in 2012. in the prologue of her new book zero feel she started her coverage on the scandal which agents brought prostitutes at their hotel rooms while making arrangements for president obama to visit cartagena, colombia. we talked with her about her new book subtitled the rise and fall of the secret service.

>> good evening everyone. welcome to our book talk this evening with john ferling author of "winning independence" and i'm joined with -- we are -- pop them into the q&a box and we will read them all at the end. i'll send it over to s my colleague to introduce john. >> thank you tina. the historical society is pleased to co-sponsor this conversation with a dedicatedt historians to enlighten us with new information and maybe new theories especially of the southern strategy. we loved that because as local a store and especially here in connecticut where many important figures of the american revolution came from as well as a few battles fought we always want to learn more. john ferling this her best

turmeric is at the university of west georgia where she taught courses on the revolution america's founders in u.s.y, military history. written 13 p books and many journal articles on the policy objectives of the american revolution. he's a biographer of george washington and john adams. but i can't read the names of his books and awards i prefer you tell more about john -- although his parents were from west virginia he grew up in galveston texas but according to his biography his mother was college-educated 1920 taught 11 years until she was banned by west virginia law from marrying. his father attended college on a baseball scholarship in the 1920s with the depression with the depression ended his academics. took a job with union carbide in texas and he had one son johnny in 1940. john has a bachelors in history from sam houston university masters in history a from baylor university. although he is retired it hasn't stopped him from attending and

speaking at seminars at these kind of events and lecturing and spending time writing which is ou passion. he and his wife carol and therefore live near atlanta but there is one more thing john likes to share his love of a stall. the first major league game he saw saw was a 19 person between pittsburgh and the brooklyn dodgers one jackie robinson scored the winning run. john was set for life. like any good historian he timed his research trip around games he wanted to see but especially to boston to see the red sox. in new england we like to hear that. the audience is looking forward to hearing more about your most recent book subbase let's begin pitchers of storing your folks is bent on american revolution. what do you love most about this chapter in the history? >> first of all let me thank you guys for having me in the library and the historical

society for inviting me tonight. i have been looking forward to doing it. i was drawn to the american revolution because that's where ripping started for the united states and our political system, our social ideals were formed during the course of the revolutionar. if you think about it blinken when he talked about four score and seven years ago was referring to 1776 and the ideals of equality and god-given rights and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people. when martin luther king talked about having dreamed his dream after an -- african-americans were cut on the ideals that really began with the american revolution. i was drawn to that and they

thinke in addition because the revolution or the studying of the revolution consisted of two hthings but on the one hand thee is the revolution itself which i think came as a surprise to most of the participants. dozen years before 1776 no one foresaw the revolution coming but there it was and so the question comes up why did it occur and what was the revolution about? was it just a case of colonists trying to gain independence or was it as thomas paine setting common sense in 1776, was at his struggle that would ring about a new world? there is plenty to study with regard to the american revolution but in addition you've got kind of a double deal

there because you've got's a wa. most of the congressmen knew certainly when they declared independence in july of 1776 that they really weren't. they had to win the independence and that led to a long war, a war that had dark and uncertain times in 1776 and then like a rollercoaster france allied with the united states in 1778 and many people felt including george washington for that matter felt this virtually assured american independence and then things went south after that and the war becomes stalemated and that's the subject of my book. for years after the great victory at saratoga the period

from 1778 to yorktown in 1781 when they think the outcome of the war wasn't till the very last moment unknown. it could have gone in different directions. no one knew until york town of whether or not america would gain independence or the united states would include all 13 states. so so long dramatic struggle and i never get tired of looking at both the revolution and the war itself and the fascinating cast of characters that were part of the political revolution and part of the war. that is why went into it and i have stayed with the revolution throughout my career.

>> your new book "winning independence" challenge the assumption that america -- instead great britain lost a war it could have one which i took directly from page 5453 can you elaborate on the nuance of this? it's a very different way to look atos it. >> sure. i think the british had several opportunities at the outset in the war in 1776 and 1777, 1775, 76 and 77 to one the war. general gage who was the commander of the british army at the time the run down to the war was coming on said winning the first engagement of the war is crucial. if we can have enough troops

over here and score a dramatic victory then probably their fervor for war will disappear and instead of that have ring -- and happening lexington in concord occurred and particularly the disaster that faced the british when they march back from concord to boston. then they had a chance to score a dramatic victory two months later at ankar hill in boston and really they could have scored a loten of those victori. sir henry clinton who was the third in command at the time advised general gage sent forces around to the backside and we will tend the american rebels on top of the hill and we will over store victory but they didn't do that and they marched up the hill and marched into a

disaster. there were two incidents in the campaign for new york in 1776 when at the british had acted resolute when they had half of washington's army trapped and then in september of 76 when washington really foolishly kept his army on manhattan and didn't get off that the british could have annihilated the entire continental army at that point. any of those victories would have won the war i think for the british and they still have had another chance in 1777. the plan that london devised was for an army to come down from canada led by john burgoyne while general howe move north to rendezvous with burgoyne and

instead of doing that howe went to philadelphia and the last major chance that the british had to win the war. but that's not to say that it was guaranteed because i lay said earlier if they long desperate war in lots of things go wrong for the american after 1778. the wars stalemated the american economy collapsed and american morale was sagging. george washington in august of 1784 the letter to the chief executive of pennsylvania which

he said i have almost ceased to hope. at the same time washington was writing that letter arthur lee could benefit american diplomat since the beginning ofd the war overseas in europe returned to america for the first time since before the war began and he landed in boston, boston and of all places now. he is there for a few days and talks with a number of often officials in massachusetts officials and he wrote that most of those held by august of 1780 concluded that the war would and in a negotiating settlement short of independence. things are really up in the air. of course add your town america does when and gain its victory

and gains independence. america did come out of the war victorious. they would celebrate it in five more years with the 250th anniversary of the 1776. also argue that america could not have won the war without such assistance. the french were providing clandestine assistance starting in 1775 that provided munitions and weaponry and clothing and blankets and whatever for the americans and then they allied with the americans. it was open and they said sent over the navy and eventually sent over an army. they loaned a great deal of

money to the americans which wound up costing the french canyons in in the 1790s because the economic woes and the fallout from all of that contribute to france's problems them brought on the french revolution after 1789. so anyway the americans knew when the war with the french -- which is extremely important to remember. >> kate can we get back to some and he mentioned early in someone you know a lot about which is sir henry clinton. you said you think he deserves -- what aspects of his career have historians really misunderstood why doesn't he received credit for strategizing the pressure of south carolina george and possibly -- that would have redrawn the map of america?

>> let me go to my point here. here is sir henry clinton. clinton became the commander of the british army. he learned of his appointment in may of 1778. he was the third british commander during the war. gage had been there for many years before the revolution and before the war and was recalled after the disasters along concord road and ankar hill and general william howe succeeded him. howe was commander in 76 and 77 and resigned after saratoga.

clinton was then named the commander and he will be the commander of the british army from may of 78 through a little bit d'ante gort town. i found clinton an interesting figure. he was from an aristocratic family in england and his father was a career naval officer who became a royal governor of new york and young henry when he was still growings up spent some of his former dinner years in new york city. he joined the british army as a teenager and he fought in two wars before the revolutionary war. he f earned a reputation as a brave courageous risk-taking soldier. he was seriously wounded and in fact an engagement in germany in

the seven-year war in the early 1760s. he was an intellectually curious individual. he read widely and read deeply on military history and military strategy and the year before the revolutionary war broke out in 1774 out of his own pocket he paid to make it trip deep into western europe to observe a war between the russians and the turks hoping to learn more about military strategy and tactics. then he came over as the third in command of the british army landing just weeks after lexington and concord had just been seeing some action that ankar hill. he served i think with some

distinction in a couple of years before he is named commander. he won a reputation in some circles as the best strategist among high-ranking officers. he had more than 30 years of experience >> he did a good job as commander but he had the misfortune of becoming commander as the same time as france and of the war and now that britain had to fight both the french and the americans they had to withdraw some of their troops

from america and send them to the caribbean to meet the new threats posed by the french. when clinton read disorders he discovered that he had to immediately relinquish 8000 of its troops and he had already lost all of his troops who surrendered at saratoga. he did have an army that was considerably smaller than the army that the british had had in america a year before but despite that his orders were to bring washington to battle and hold on to new york, hold on to rhode island and implement this new southern strategy that we will talk about a little bit later on. he really had an enormous task and from the very beginning

clinton knew that he was up against it. my faith is hard as he put it and in a letter that he wrote almost immediately after he being named commander he said he thought it was inevitable that britain would lose the war and he feared that he would be scapegoated for the loss of the war. turned out that he was prescient to cause after york town many people in england did scapegoat clinton and they blamed clinton, arguing that he was passive and he wasn't a risk-taker and he wasn't dynamic enough. he just had not done enough they argued to have one a war that britain could have one. i think most of those arguments were picked up by historians

down the road. clinton's reputation in the literature has suffered as well. i tried to argue in the book that many of those allegations just aren't true. clinton was i think far more active than his foes suggested. he did take risks. he was far more active than washington was during the four years between saratoga and your down for instance. thomas paine in the 1790s were the blistering pamphlet attacking washington and didn't agree with payne on this but payne argued that washington slept in the field as he put it in the real winners of the war were generals horatio gates and

nathaniel green. but washington was generally inactive during much of that time. clinton was far more active. i think the most devastating thing, the most devastating attack or appraisal of clinton came about almost 75 years ago and still written by scholars today and many still accept it. it was a study made by clinton's biographer, principle biographer in conjunction with the chronicle. they argued that clinton sought power badia deep subliminal psychological problems that prevented him from act thing on the power that he had.

i think frankly they think that argument is malarkey. not that i'm a particular foe with history but in this case there were obviously unable to put clinton on the couch but in addition clinton left behind virtually no private correspondence that would have opened a window to his inner self. i think clinton's reputation suffered from that. they they are sure kitty. >> this is joey, just joining us now. [laughter] >> it's all right. mine can't get in the room. anyway i think that study and clintonn should be filed away in the circular file.

he surely made mistakes and i recognize that in the book but i think he was a good general and a seemingly good strategists who didn't have too often much to work with and faced just enormous challenges. i hope that my appraisal will convince some people to take another look at sir henry clinton. >> in terms of the scope and depth of his abilities -- i want to stay k with you a bit i just realized with our chronology we are out of order. after britain's capacity and saratoga in 1777 the so-called -- strategy what was it and what was britain to gain in this war from 1778 onward? >> i think after saratoga the

british, in fact many people in england after saratoga wanted to drop out of the war. they've been going on for three years. they had achieved virtually nothing and now had lost an entire army at saratoga. and so would the news came in that saratoga had triggered a lengthy debate in lord north's warr ministry went into the winter of 1778 and it was the debate over for one thing whether to remain in the war and if the decision was made to remain in the war what kind of strategy would they pursue? at this point the strategy had tried to destroy washington's continental army and also when control of several northern

provinces. they really hadn't succeeded on either score. so at the end of the debate the notion of remaining in the war prevailed largely because kang insisted that the war continue. let me go back to my powerpoint here. the person who really led the fight to remain in the war was lord george germane. he was the american secretary or secretary of state for the american colony and germane began in that position. germane was in essence the minister of the war and he was also, he also had responsibility for britain's army in america. germane understood a new

strategy had to be developed and germane came up with what became known as the southern strategy. that was essentially to an essence virtually write off the northern colonies and attempt to regain control of two and possibly three colonies down south, georgia, south carolina and possibly north carolina as well. and germane thought that was the plausible store is dashed its energy and i think you is generally correct that a greater percentage of colonists in the southern colonies had remained loyal to him than was the case

in the northern colonies. they were tied economically and through the anglican church and other factors so germain felt by going into the south many of these loyalists would willingly bear arms for their king and since many of the troops, it ate thousand troops had to be relinquished by clinton and they could be replaced hopefully by loyalists some of whom would come in to the regular british army and into what became known as provincial regiments and others would go into new lease fractured loyalist units. the idea was that the british army would drive the rebels out of an area and then the loyalist militia would come in to arm the british army and take possession of that area and pacify the

area. if it worked out this is what the united states, assuming it got its independence, might have looked like following the war. the area is the area that would be the united states and anything else in their employ would be possessed by the british. so if germain's planned southern strategy panned out in georgia and south carolina north carolina and north virginia were retaking the british already had east and west florida. they had gained that in a war that ended in 1763. they still were in control of the trans-appalachian and had control of canada so the united states would have been small, weak, surrounded by a great

european power and itt would fae very uncertain future. and anyone that thought that this would play out in this fashion, and not very long many in the united states would seek to return to the british empire because thisye would have very little capability of expanding and whatever. so that was the southern strategy and it was cobbled together in the winter of 1778 in london and for as i mentioned a little bit earlier when clayton receives his orders, it includes the southern strategy which he gets around to pretty fast. .. nting the southern strategy which he

gets around to pretty fast. the expedition then that takes charleston in the siege operation in april and may. let me show you a slide here quickly after charleston falls, clinton appoints appoints a

general cornwallis to be in charge of south carolina and georgia with the rebel rebellion in south carolina and georgia so cornwallis is going to be the major player in the war in the south from the time he takes command in june of 1780 down into the late spring of 1781 until he arrives at yorktown

clinton comes back to new york and never saw cornwallis again so that is the strategy and what the british were trying to accomplish. they came reasonably close. some things went wrong but at the beginning of 1781, clinton was far more confident than washington was of what was going to happen that year. they began 1781 more confident of the british success than any of the other four years that he was commander and i think what

clinton ultimately thought was if the french and americans could score a decisive victory in 1781, that the war would end in a negotiated settlement and clinton wasn't alone in that, i think washington felt that, lafayette says that, john adams and europe is telling congress pretty much the same thing, adams is telling congress they've been in this for three years and haven't gained anything out of it so you've got to gain something or they will accept an invitation from neutral nations in europe to come to a peace conference and

what would have happened is anybody's guess. maybe it would have recognized an independent united states that was smaller or maybe it would not agree to the independence of the united states. this would have been a conference primarily of european monarchs and friendly to republican government. >> i think you answered the next three questions. it emerges in parallel leadership what is it that big aisles independent of size which

would you prefer to serve under and why? >> let me say a couple things about that even in a section with a dozen pages where i tried to look at the two to see what i can find about both of them. it may have been that washington had insecurities and he didn't want people to get too close to him to discover what he feared for his weak points or it may have been simply that washington as a leader felt he couldn't let

anybody get very close t it reminds me what john f. kennedy said at one point they have to both loved and feared. and washington may have felt that way. in the case of clinton, clinton acknowledged she was very shy, and not outgoing. he made one of the strangest comments ever made by any historical figure,. [laughter] [inaudible] [laughter] anyway, neither of them were really outgoing. but clinton i think made friends more easily than washington. who in a sense may never have had a really close friend in the sense of the word throughout his life. but both the clinton and washingtonth were brave, courageous men under fire.

i am always amazed at the battle when washington was riding on horseback, writing right into british soldiers who were firing at him. they were no further away from him than a picture is from a batter on a baseball diamond. that is pretty close to not flinch. as i said clinton had earned a reputation before this and again during the revolution as somebody who was courageous under fire. both of them i think faced similar problems during the war and that both had problems with supplies. oath had a lack money, lack of troops, and whatever. both clinton and washington

endured considerable criticism during the war. not sure how may people remember today there's a great deal after he had made several mistakes and eight new york campaign and 76, and then after the campaign of 77 even more and more open criticism of washington. at one point the president of congress around 1778 said that when washington communicated with congress, it was laughter. but congress cut off -- congress could have ditched washington and some of his critics wanted. but congress fortunately did not take that step. they knew would bring on public house and run the war effortha. after that congress cuts off the open criticismt of

washington and really launches the campaign to make washington an iconic figure from valley forget, on toward the end of the war. to elevate him so he would be above criticisms and they began celebrating washington's birthday. clinton ran into a lot of criticism two. i think in the case of both of these guys is sort of like my experience when i was a student, all the students complained about their professors. when i became a professor all the professors were complaining about the administrators. and i think that same sort of thing went on in the british army and among the americans too. they're things like issues over promotion and whatever and people got left out were unhappy about that.

so both of them ran into a great deal of criticism. there were plenty of differences between them per dimension but washington was a leader, one of the differences is a washington was a better leader than clinton. i'm washington just exuded leadership. he was a big man. this was a time. on the study of muster rolls have demonstrated the average full grown american mail was 5 feet 7 inches tall. is only 5 feet 8 inches in world war ii so it is not changed a much in the period after the revelation. washington was almost 64 he literally towered over other people. he weighed comment 1780 he

weighed 210 pounds fraid so he's 6 feet four, 210 pounds is about the same size as a cornerback of ohio state or clemson. [laughter] are university of alabama or something today. he did have a reputation of athleticism. athleticism in those days was equestrian. it was how you rode a horse. he seemed to walk gracefully he was about 5 feet 7 inches he was pretty average and many, many ways. other than her background because as i mentioned clinton was from an aristocratic family. one difference was people today often forget washington

should be above politics. washington was really a very good politician. he was almost unsurpassed in his political skills. clinton acknowledged openly, even though he had actually held a seat in the house of commons at one point he was not a very good politician he was like a fish out of water in that regard. there were some similarities and there were some differences. i have forgotten what last part of the question? >> guest: woyjeck who would you serve under? >> guest: well, that is tough, a tough question. i guess it would depend on your rank and whatever.

i think i would have served under either man relate. i think clinton was a good general pre-neither of these guys were blood thirsty. neither sent their men into battle and hopeless situations in squandered troops. both of them were trying to preserve life. i think both had humanitarian qualities about them. but also because faced so many shortages they could not afford to lose troops. i think they both were good commanders. i probably would have been willing to serve under either one of them. although i have to say, i do

not know that i would've wanted to be a soldier in the revolutionary war on either side. it was a really tough goal. the officers, higher ranking officers when the armies were on the move, and they were on the move a lot. the higher ranking officers could travel on horseback. everyone else barged. i think these guys watch thousands of miles. even in the british army we know all about the suffering valley forge in many cases the men were ill provision,rg ill-equipped it was really a tough go for these guys.

and we are coming through a pandemic now and these guys face disease at least in the american army. most of the american soldiers who died round up dying of disease. not from combat. it was a risky, difficult, harsh environment that they face. what i might've been able to serve underrs both generals i'm glad i did not have to serve the world either side. lexi has a question noise dying to ask it. i hazard one of his other characters. >> it has to dipping on both sides of the war. >> benedict arnold is the true trader or just a guy who wanted a steady paycheck?

[laughter] >> that is kind the million-dollar question. a lot of biographers have looked at that and arnold's mind to know what was going on. let me try to answer it this way. he had some legitimate grievances. he had been passed over for promotion rate unjustly and fairly i think. and then when he became that military commander in philadelphia after the british evacuated philadelphia, many people turned against him because he was consorting with families that were regarded as families he married peggy who was the daughter of a family of suspected of being a tory family. he was actually prosecuted so

he had some legitimate grievances even though many other generals did too. it commits treason in which thomas paine wrote a pamphlet about the wake of this. i don't love he tried to believe this i tried to smooth over the fallout from arnold's treason. after having said that there's a second thing hereto. many people will argue that arnold was just after the money. and he did get a great deal of money from the british. but there is another side to that equation. that is a arnold owns a

considerable amount of property in new england. if america and up winning the war he was going to lose all that property. so it would really kind of be a trade-off. he would lose a i valuable property but gain the amount in the british were going to pay. he probably could have done just as well financially had he remained on the american side. but one of the things that has always intrigued me about arnold is he negotiates with the british through intermediaries. those intermediaries report to sir henley clinton. and for the a longtime clinton did not know who the intermediaries were talking to. he just knew it waser an important american who might be willing to commit treason. it is not until august of 1780

that arnold next the decision to turn coach. what habits and august of 1780? cornwallis scored a huge victory over an american army and camden and south carolina. it was destroyed in the theater. many having killed, wounded or captured in the four engagements. the same month washington writes the letter i almost sleep to hope that arthur lee and boston is saying that many

of the leaders in massachusetts and now believe the war is going to end, is going to negotiate a settlement that turn code in august of 1780. he very well may have believed on the winning side but having said all about is speculative, nobody really knows what's going on and arnold's mind. >> i do like it they put him in all the time and decision-making is not an impetuous mood to suddenly switch sides. that really could have been anyone in a similar position in terms of rank and opportunity. and i did appreciate that put them in a new context.

just a guy after a paycheck. it's a overview of the book thank you very much the audience is typing any questions and i want to get to the last one he put together. he's bringing the storage the modern era of the audience hundred type anything they want toth ask. the numbers of the american revolution, the people involved is towards the end of the book. it is staggering. what do you want modern readers to understand about the impact and the consequences of war. in this whole experience of it.

when i wrote the book, one of things that aren't mentioned as i wanted people to understand just how long the struggle to win independence was. i think because saratoga occurs in october of 1777 and a huge british army surrenders there, textbooks depict saratoga as the turning point of the revolutionary b war, this been a tendency that everything that followed was anti- climatic and the american victory was guaranteed. i'm so unwanted readers to come away for my book understanding that a long grandma war had to be fought

after saratoga. but victory was a guarantee. as i said clinton thought britain could still win the war in 1781. they also wanted to be aware of just how grim this war was. about 15% of those who fought on the british side died in this war. pretty heavy. as best i have been able to determine, roughly the same percentage of people who fought on the american side abdied in this war. to put that in some kind of meaningful terms, the united states lost about three to 50 men in world war ii.

at the united states had lost 15% of itst soldiery, sailors in world war ii, more than 2 million americans would have died in thatt war. it is a war that is really a much bloodier war than many people are aware. and also, as i have mentioned, i wanted people to understand the outcome of the war after saratoga after that for your struggle. during the four years after saratoga, more americans died in during the 30 months of war before saratoga. roughly about 65% of all americans who fought on americansn side died after

saratoga. this another 4000 americans who died fighting for great written fighting for this war. in fact there more americans fighting for great britain. those are the things i wanted readers to come away with. what i tried to do in the book was look at the crises that washington faced. crises that clinton faced breadth and the decisions they made during those crises. what they knew what they did not know when they made those decisions. often times i think people sort of read history backwards. they know how it came out. the actors obviously did not know that when they made their

decision. ditto for be a good decision or a bad decision i just had to make the decision based on what they new at that time. until i tried, throughout the book when i looked at the decisions that clinton, washington and nathaniel green, and others made, why they made the decisions they did. and what they knew when they d made those decisions. >> we do have an audience question but what would have been the reason for the british to allow for a negotiated peace? what would have been in it for them? >> there are many people in englandor just wanted to get out of the war. it had gone on for a long time. they were not winning the war. there was a fear there were going to lose all of the trade with america that france would gobble up.

postwar commerce with america that the british economy might be ruined longer the war continued. so there were some in england were pushing for a negotiated -- immediately after saratoga, the head of the war of ministry, the prime minister learns of search logo. he proposes a negotiated settlement. usually referred to as the north peace plan of 1778. he actually sends a commission of diplomats by its own as a carlisle78 commissions it's known in america 1778. they were authorized to negotiate a settlement. what lord north was willing to accept was essentially

everything the first continental congress it asked for on the eve of war with one exception. that was independence. north would not recognize independence. but he was willing to let a continental congress remain. a greater autonomy and on and on and on. the first continental congress had askedo for. right up to thehe pentacle power there were people who were willing to accept a negotiated settlementhe. >> your answers have been thoughtful your waiting is thoughtful the book has been extensively researched. [inaudible] >> actually inviting. i really do encourage your audience to pick up and read it. that does have a completely different perspective at the american revolution pre-thank you for spending your evening

with both of a and i from historical society. i look for to seeing a person. >> i look for to that as well pretty thinking once again for having me. >> tonight on book tv, on cspan2 we look at policing starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern conversation with former newark city police commissioner bill bratton. the author of the book american on fire the untold history of police violence and black rebellion since 1960s. a conversation with rosa brooks, a law professor who became a police officer in her 40s. book tv on cspan2 starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. ♪ ♪ >> secret service was founded in the aftermath of the assassination of abraham lincoln. is not to the death of john f. kennedy the presidential protection service began to closer attention from the american people.

began reporting on the secret service for the "washington post" in 2012. in the prologue of her new book, zero fail she writes she started her coverage the scandal in which agents brought prostitutes to their hotel rooms while making arrangements for president obama to visit columbia. we talked with ms. clinic about her in-depth look and her new book subtitled the rise and fall of the secret service. >> on this episode book notes plus lucent c-span.org/podcast or wherever you get your podcast. >> weekends on c-span2. every saturday you will find events on people for nations past every -- on sunday book tv brings the latest nonfiction books and authors. it's television for serious readers